Develop and Validate a Survey to Assess Adult’s Perspectives on Autonomous Ridesharing and Ridehailing Services

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The article titled “Develop and Validate a Survey to Assess Adult’s Perspectives of Autonomous RideSharing Services” has an attractive, up-to-date, and interesting topic. The gathered data and the survey conducted are valuable but the presentation is too weak. I suggest the authors go through the manuscript thoroughly and try to enhance the presentation.

Please find my comments as follows.

1)     In the abstract is it mentioned, “An exploratory and confirmatory factory analysis demonstrated three factors: a) Intention to Use, Trust, and Safety; b) Potential Benefits; and c) Accessibility of autonomous ridesharing services”. However, this sentence should be more clearly written. What are these factors referring to? Factors of what?

2)     In line 20: “factory analysis” should be changed to “factor analysis”.

3)     Some pieces of detail about the methodology and numbers should be removed from the abstract and instead, empirical results and practical implications of the research should be added to it.

4)     The literature review is not adequate and the number of references is too low for a research article. Please strengthen the literature review.

5)     The research gap should be better defined based on the literature.

6)     Some parts of the introduction section (from lines 76 to 103) are related to the methods section. In the introduction section, authors should provide an introductory part to introduce the subject; then, discuss the problem, go through the literature review and show there is a gap to be covered, clarify the main aims and objectives of the current research, and finally, present the main structure of the paper. The introduction in its current form is not appropriate and should be restructured.

7)     There are several sub-headings in the paper. Please merge some of them.

8)     There is a huge emphasis on validity throughout the article. Of course, validity is important but there is no need for this level of emphasis and devoting several headings to it. please try to highlight the main findings of the research and its implications instead.

9)     The discussion section should be enhanced.

10)  The conclusion section is too short! Please provide concluding remarks regarding the research and its findings, disclose the limitations that the research faced, and provide avenues for further research.

The quality of English language is ok.

Author Response

Enclosed you will find our itemized response. Thank you for your time and willingness to review our revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper develops a survey to evaluate the people’s perspectives of autonomous vehicles. The comments are as follows.

(1) What is different between the introduced survey and other surveys? The authors should gives the innovations in Introduction.

(2) What’s the condition of the applications in Florida? Will the application affect the people’s attitude?

(3) Conclusions should be more specific.

English is suitable.

Author Response

Enclosed you will find our itemized response. Thank you for your time and willingness to review our revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper develops and validates a survey to assess adults' views on automated car sharing services. The survey is conducted by establishing and analyzing face validity, content validity, and retest reliability, and the survey results are psychometrically tested by factor analysis. The purpose of this study has a certain significance. However, there are many aspects to be improved.

 

1. It is mentioned in the article to establish face validity and content validity. Please explain what are the functional differences between the two.

2. Please explain why the number of items increased from 52 to 54 after establishing content validity, and what is the basis for adding two items.

3. Is the validity of the evaluation content in Section 4 of Chapter 2 only for small and medium-sized enterprises to conduct correlation evaluations and provide CVI scores? Please explain it.

4. What is the significance of establishing structural validity in chapters 2-3, as it is not mentioned in the abstract and introduction?

5. Please provide a brief introduction and explanation on the selection of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in 2.7 Analysis.

6. What does visual analysis scale items mean?

7. The last line of Table 2 is incorrect. It is recommended to carefully check and modify it.

8. Chapter 3 provides an explanation of the data analyzed in the survey, but does not explain how the data or its changes represent people's attitudes and perspectives towards autonomous carpooling services. It is recommended to summarize at the end of Chapter 3.

well done

Author Response

Enclosed you will find our itemized response. Thank you for your time and willingness to review our revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks to the authors for revising the manuscript based on the comments. I recommend the latest version of the manuscript for publication.

It is acceptable.

Reviewer 3 Report

No more comments for this round.